Peer Review Policy and Reviewer Guidelines - Journal of Dentomaxillofacial

| Post date: 2024/10/14 |

Peer Review Policy
The Journal of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Pathology and Surgery (JDRPS), as a member of the Negah Journals family and owned by Guilan University of Medical Sciences, co-published by the Negah Institute for Social Research & Scientific Communication, is fully committed to implementing a rigorous double-blind peer-review system in accordance with the COPE Code of Conduct, COPE Best Practice Guidelines, and the ICMJE Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals.
The journal’s complete Policies and Guidelines for Reviewers are available on its official website.
1. Scope and Commitment
JDRPS is a peer-reviewed, open-access journal dedicated to advancing high-quality research in dentomaxillofacial radiology, pathology, and surgery, as well as related dental and medical sciences.
To ensure scientific rigor and academic integrity, the journal maintains a strict, transparent, and ethically grounded peer-review process.
2. Peer Review Process
2.1 Initial Editorial Screening
All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief or members of the editorial committee. The purpose of this stage is to:

assess the manuscript’s alignment with the journal’s aims and scope;
evaluate the basic scientific quality, novelty, and adherence to author instructions;
determine whether the manuscript should be sent for peer review or be desk-rejected.

Authors typically receive a decision within 1–2 weeks after submission. Manuscripts that lack basic scientific standards or that have a low likelihood of eventual acceptance may be promptly rejected to avoid unnecessary delays for authors who may wish to submit elsewhere.
In some cases, the manuscript may be returned to authors for initial revisions before entering the review stage.
2.2 Double-Blind Peer Review
All research articles—and most analytical manuscripts—undergo double-blind peer review by two to three independent experts.
Under this process:

the identities of both authors and reviewers remain concealed;
if author identity is inadvertently revealed within the manuscript, the review may proceed as single-blind;
the typical review period is 2 to 4 weeks, though delays are occasionally possible, and authors are asked to allow up to 6 weeks before inquiring.

Section Editors and the Editor-in-Chief supervise the process and retain full authority over the final decision.

2.3 Revision and Final Decision

Manuscripts requiring revision must be returned within two weeks, accompanied by a detailed response to reviewers’ comments.
Final editorial decisions include: accept, accept with minor revision, major revision and re-review, or reject.

The Editor-in-Chief holds ultimate responsibility for the final decision.

3. Reviewer Responsibilities and Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers play a central role in maintaining the scientific and ethical standards of the journal. They are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively and impartially. Key evaluation criteria include:
3.1 Scientific and Structural Criteria

Novelty and significance of the research;
Clarity and accuracy of the title, abstract, aims, and rationale;
Contextualization and literature review supporting the introduction;
Detailed and appropriate methodology, including ethical approval and statistical analysis;
Clear and relevant results consistent with study objectives;
Well-reasoned discussion, including limitations and evidence-based recommendations;
Coherent and justified conclusions;
Quality and relevance of tables and figures (typically 2–6);
Updated and relevant references (50–60% from the past 3–5 years);
Overall clarity, organization, and language quality.

3.2 Ethical Principles
Reviewers must:

treat all manuscripts as strictly confidential;
refrain from sharing, reproducing, or using manuscript content in any form;
declare any conflicts of interest promptly;
notify the editorial office if unable to conduct a timely or qualified review;
avoid personal criticism and focus solely on scientific content.

4. Providing Constructive Feedback
The primary purpose of peer review is to improve scientific work. Reviewers should therefore:

provide respectful, specific, and constructive comments;
clearly distinguish essential revisions from optional suggestions;
avoid vague judgments such as “poor writing”;
refrain from recommending acceptance or rejection in comments to authors;
complete the journal’s review form thoroughly.

The reviewer’s score sheet is visible only to editors, while comments are shared with authors.

5. Privacy and Confidentiality
Based on ICMJE recommendations:

manuscripts are treated as confidential documents at every stage;
reviewers may not retain, copy, or distribute submitted manuscripts;
all versions must be deleted after the review is submitted;
editors may not disclose manuscript status, reviewer comments, or decisions to anyone other than authors and reviewers;
confidentiality may be breached only in cases of suspected fraud or serious ethical misconduct following COPE protocols.

6. Conflict of Interest
Despite the double-blind process, reviewers may occasionally suspect author identity. In such cases, reviewers should:

immediately inform the editorial office of any potential conflict;
decline the review if the conflict introduces significant bias;
avoid personal judgments and focus strictly on scientific merit.

Editors value transparency and will seek an alternative reviewer whenever necessary.
7. Compliance with International Standards
JDRPS adheres to the following established ethical frameworks:

COPE Guidelines & Flowcharts
COPE International Standards for Authors
COPE International Standards for Editors
Negah Principles on Publication Ethics
Negah Guidelines and Flowcharts on Publication Ethics
Negah Standards for Authors and Editors
Negah Peer Review Policies and Guidelines
Negah Conflict of Interest Policies

8. Role of Peer Review in Ensuring Scientific Quality
No single reviewer determines the outcome of a submission; however, each review contributes substantially to the editorial decision-making process.
The journal greatly values the expertise and time dedicated by reviewers and views rigorous, ethical, and constructive peer review as the foundation of its scientific integrity.

View: 1048 Time(s) | Print: 215 Time(s) | Email: 0 Time(s) | 0 Comment(s)